Henry Hinde Junior School Ofsted Report

Full report

In accordance with section 44(1) of the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires special measures because it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

• Strengthen leadership and governance to ensure that:
  • there is increased capacity at senior and middle leadership level to tackle weaknesses in the school and challenge a culture of low expectations
  • governors challenge leaders over pupils’ outcomes, including for disadvantaged pupils, and check the impact of pupil premium funding
  • pay awards for teachers are linked to the effectiveness of their work
  • governors check that the school is fulfilling its statutory duties for safeguarding and for information it publishes on the website
  • all statutory arrangements for special educational needs are met to ensure that pupils have their needs accurately identified, met and reviewed
  • the curriculum is sufficiently broad and balanced so that pupils have a greater understanding of diversity in modern Britain and the wider world.
• Improve outcomes rapidly for pupils in reading, writing and mathematics by ensuring that teachers:
  • have high expectations for all pupils, including the most able pupils, disadvantaged pupils and those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities
  • plan all learning based on accurate assessments so that there is a consistently high rate of challenge for different groups of pupils
  • deploy additional adults effectively to enable pupils who are at risk of falling behind to make accelerated progress.
• Improve pupils’ behaviour, personal development and welfare by ensuring that:
  • misbehaviour by individuals does not disrupt the learning of others
  • pupils’ behaviour in the dining hall area is of a high standard and noise levels are reduced
  • pupils’ presentation of written work is of a high quality. An external review of governance and an external review of the school’s use of the pupil premium should be undertaken in order to assess how these aspects of leadership and management may be improved. It is strongly recommended that the school does not appoint newly qualified teachers.

Inspection judgements

Effectiveness of leadership and management Inadequate

• The school has experienced considerable upheaval in leadership since it became an academy in January 2014. The rapid turnover of headteachers and acting headteachers has led to instability of leadership. Recent action taken has been too little and too late to improve outcomes for pupils. Leaders have been unable to arrest the decline in outcomes, which remain exceptionally low at the end of key stage 2 in reading, mathematics and writing. External consultancy support has not led to improvements in outcomes for pupils and has now stopped. There is no effective external accountability at present.
• Despite a rapid turnover of previously underperforming staff since the appointment of the executive headteacher, weaknesses remain in middle leadership, teaching and support provided by additional adults. There is insufficient capacity in leadership to improve further. The executive headteacher’s time in school has been reduced following the appointment of a new associate headteacher since September 2016.
• Leaders, staff and governors do not share a common vision of how to address weaknesses in school.
• New assessment procedures are not yet leading to an accurate picture of pupils’ progress in each year group. As a result, some leaders and governors do not know how well pupils currently in school are doing. Tracking systems, including for identifying most-able pupils, are at an early stage of development. Teachers’ understanding of how pupils’ prior attainment is an indicator of potential achievement is not well established.
• Middle leadership has not been developed sufficiently. Where staff are new to these roles there has been too little time to demonstrate its impact. Leaders with responsibility for subjects have an overgenerous view of teaching and learning and have little idea of outcomes for different groups including those who have special educational needs and/or disabilities, and disadvantaged pupils.
• Leaders were not able to offer an overview of progress for disadvantaged pupils or pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities currently in school. Up to the most recent provisional test results at the end of Year 6 in 2016, outcomes in reading, writing and mathematics for these groups of pupils were very low and have shown little sign of improving over time.
• Inadequacies in the leadership of provision for pupils who have special educational needs have only started to be identified by the school since the appointment of the executive headteacher. Some pupils have made very little measurable progress. This is because their needs have not been accurately identified in order to provide the right kind of support. New leadership has been established very recently and weaknesses are not yet being fully addressed. Not all statutory duties for special educational needs are met. There is insufficient analysis of outcomes or evaluation of impact of support. Teaching and the work of additional adults outside of the classroom is not sufficiently monitored in order to evaluate the impact on pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.
• Additional pupil premium funding has had negligible impact on outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. Only very recently, since new leadership was put in place in September 2016, have pupils’ individual needs started to be identified, although this has not yet extended to the most able disadvantaged pupils. Leaders have started to monitor the impact of additional adult support for disadvantaged pupils who need to catch up in their literacy and numeracy. The ‘forest school’ work, which is funded by the pupil premium, is having a positive impact on improving pupils’ self-confidence and resilience.
• New leadership means that the promotion of pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is at an early stage. Personal, social and health education has not been introduced to the curriculum, although new leadership has a good understanding of what is required. Pupils who receive support from additional adults can miss out on up to three assemblies a week in order to attend catch-up sessions in literacy and numeracy. A weekly ‘R time’ session during lessons enables pupils to develop their social skills and cooperate with each other to resolve conflicts.
• Pupils have experienced British values through voting in elections to the school council and for head boy and girl. Pupils do not have enough opportunities to learn about diversity in the United Kingdom and the wider world through the planned curriculum.
• Pupils experience a range of subjects taught discretely or through topics. However this has not led to improved outcomes for pupils. There is very little French and music taught.
• Over half of the small number of parents who responded to Parent View, Ofsted’s online questionnaire, said they would not recommend the school to another parent. However, parents responding to Parent View during the inspection, and those who spoke to inspectors, were very positive about the impact on behaviour since the executive headteacher was appointed. Now her time has been reduced, some parents expressed uncertainty about the future.
• The school uses its physical education (PE) and sport premium well to provide specialist teaching. A wide range of sports and healthy activities are set out clearly in a provision map on the school’s website. A detailed spending plan is in place which includes provision for equipment, subscriptions to sports partnerships and clubs as varied as gymnastics, ‘boccia’ (a form of bowling) and non-contact boxing. These clubs are having a positive impact on improving behaviour and the school is able to demonstrate an increase in participation by pupils.
• Senior leaders and some newly appointed middle leaders have an accurate view of the quality of teaching and the systemic weaknesses that still need to be addressed.
• Swift action was taken following the appointment of the executive headteacher to make some changes in staffing and in leadership of special educational needs. Training introduced has been too new to have an impact on improving teaching.
• Parents and pupils recognise that since the executive headteacher was appointed there has been a positive impact on behaviour.

Governance of the school

• Governors are failing to hold leaders to account for the poor provision and outcomes for pupils that have been present in the school since it became an academy. They have been too slow to take action to address identified weak leadership.
• Although the cluster governing board (which includes a member of the National Education Trust (NET) Academies Trust) has been in existence since September 2016, it only appointed a governor with responsibility for safeguarding five days before the inspection visit in late November. It is not carrying out its responsibilities to check that the school meets its statutory duties for safeguarding.
• Governors are too ready to accept recommendations for teachers’ pay awards even if they feel the evidence of performance against targets does not merit the award.
• They are not sufficiently aware of how well pupils currently in school are doing, including pupils eligible for pupil premium funding.

Safeguarding

• The arrangements for safeguarding are effective, although governors do not check that this is the case. The school cares for pupils well. Policies and procedures are updated regularly and staff are regularly informed and trained in what to do in potentially risky situations. Recording and documentation of any reported incidents is thorough. Any allegations or serious cases are dealt with thoroughly. The school meets all its statutory responsibilities for safeguarding. Leaders engage well with parents to make sure pupils are safe.

Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Inadequate

• Teaching is not based on pupils’ different starting points. Consequently, pupils of all abilities are set the same level of challenge. This leads to some getting stuck and others being held back before they can move on to more difficult tasks. The most able pupils, including those who are disadvantaged, are not given enough opportunity to work in greater depth. In some instances in mathematics pupils are doing easier work now than they were in September.
• Teachers do not take enough responsibility for those pupils at risk of falling behind or who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. Too often they rely instead on placing them with an additional adult in the classroom or outside. The effect of this is not monitored closely enough by teachers. During out-of-class support sessions led by additional adults, too much of pupils’ work is recorded on unnamed pieces of paper or on mini whiteboards. Classroom teachers therefore do not have an accurate record of what these pupils have achieved either in individual lessons or over time.
• The deployment and effectiveness of additional adult support in lessons, with small groups outside of the classroom or during assembly is highly variable. Some additional adults are little more than spectators while others intervene effectively with challenging questions and high-quality support.
• Teachers are not precise enough in their use of technical and subject-specific language. This leads at times to pupils developing misconceptions in their learning in mathematics and science. Practical resources are not used consistently well enough in mathematics to support pupils’ learning, and this hampers the progress they make. Over-reliance on work schemes, without considering what different pupils actually need to learn, means that most-able pupils, including disadvantaged pupils, are not sufficiently challenged in their reading and writing. Again, this slows their progress.
• Adults are not consistent in managing successfully the behaviour of the small number of pupils who are presenting challenging behaviour who are on the special educational needs register. This can lead to pupils disrupting the learning of other pupils.
• Assessment information provided by teachers of pupils currently in school is not accurate in some year groups, as recognised by senior leaders. The use of pupils’ prior attainment to set targets and plan next steps is underdeveloped. Where teachers set next steps for pupils in their written feedback in line with the school’s policy, it is too often not followed up by pupils or teachers. Teachers do not have high enough expectations of pupils’ presentation and appearance of written work.
• Parents spoken to and those responding to Parent View during the inspection were concerned about the high turnover of staff and inconsistency in the quality of teaching, which ranged in parents’ comments from ‘brilliant’ to ‘poor’.
• Relationships between adults and pupils are mostly positive. Pupils also work well with each other, including new arrivals who are learning English as an additional language.
• Good routines for learning and behaviour have been well established by teachers in Year 3.
• Some teaching is enabling pupils to make more rapid progress over time, through appropriately targeted work and good deployment of additional adults, but overall not at a fast enough pace to enable pupils to catch up to where they should be for their age.

Personal development, behaviour and welfare Requires improvement

Personal development and welfare

Behaviour

Outcomes for pupils Inadequate

• Most pupils join the school in Year 3 already at above expected standards for their age in reading, writing and mathematics. By the time they leave at the end of Year 6 they have not made enough progress in these subjects.
• Work in pupils’ books indicates that although current pupils in Year 3 get off to a reasonable start, older pupils are well below the expected standard for their age. The pace of progress is too slow as pupils move through school and this leaves too much ground for pupils in Year 6 to make up.
• The same work is set for all pupils and is pitched at the middle-attaining pupils. Pupils of different abilities either find their work too difficult or are held back from taking on more challenging work which would accelerate their progress further. Too often pupils return to the same level of challenge or, in some instances in mathematics, easier work than they were doing at the beginning of term.
• The most able pupils, including those who are disadvantaged, do not make sufficient progress. They are not targeted for additional support and enrichment activities as the school focuses its resources, including the pupil premium, on those who have fallen behind and need to catch up in literacy and numeracy.
• Outcomes for disadvantaged pupils have declined over time. There has been little progress in diminishing the difference between outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in school and other pupils nationally by the end of key stage 2. The pupil premium spending has had little impact on outcomes.
• Outcomes are exceptionally low for pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities. These pupils have not received appropriate assessment, provision and support for their individual needs. Consequently they have made little progress in reading, writing and mathematics.
• Low outcomes overall in reading, mathematics and writing at the end of key stage 2 mean that pupils are insufficiently prepared for the next phase of their education at secondary school.
• A significant minority of the small number of parents who responded to Parent View said their children were not making good progress in school.
• The very small number of pupils who speak English as an additional language have made rapid progress from their low starting points. Where they are fully integrated into lessons they acquire spoken English rapidly from working alongside their peers, who work well with them.

School details

Unique reference number 140372 Local authority Warwickshire Inspection number 10033354 This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005. Type of school Junior School category Academy converter Age range of pupils 7 to 11 Gender of pupils Mixed Number of pupils on the school roll 260 Appropriate authority The cluster governing body Chair Tony Ashmore Executive headteacher Fiona Hims Telephone number 01788 811 392 Website http://netacademies.net/henryhinde/ Email address office.henryhindejunior@netacademies.net Date of previous inspection Not previously inspected

Information about this school

• Henry Hinde Junior School is smaller than the average primary school.
• The proportion of pupils who have special educational needs and/or disabilities is about one in 10, which is below average. The percentage of pupils with a statement of special educational needs or education, health and care plan is above average.
• The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic groups is well below average. The percentage who do not speak English as their first language is very small.
• The proportion of pupils known to be eligible for pupil premium funding is above average.
• The proportion of pupils who leave the school mid-way through a key stage is very low.
• The school is a member of the NET Academies Trust. It has not been inspected since it became an academy in January 2014.
• There have been several changes of leadership since 2014. The headteacher of the predecessor school left in July 2014 and the trust appointed a new headteacher from September 2014. He did not return in September 2015 so the newly appointed deputy headteacher became acting headteacher. When she left on the grounds of ill-health the assistant headteacher became acting headteacher.
• The current executive headteacher, who oversees Henry Hinde and another school, was full-time acting headteacher from April to August 2016. She became executive headteacher from September 2016, reducing to two days a week at Henry Hinde Juniors, when a full-time associate headteacher was appointed. The governors had yet to ratify the post of associate headteacher at the time of the inspection visit.
• The previous special educational needs coordinator left in the summer term 2016 soon after the executive headteacher was appointed. The current special educational needs coordinator was appointed from September 2016, working across the executive headteacher’s two schools. The literacy coordinator was also appointed at the same time to work across the two schools.
• New coordinators for pupil premium and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development were appointed in September 2016.
• The local governing body for Henry Hinde Juniors was disbanded in July 2016 and a cluster governing body was appointed from September 2016 to oversee Henry Hinde and another school.
• Based on its 2015 results, the school meets the government’s floor standards. These are the minimum standards expected for pupils’ learning and progress in English and mathematics.
• The school does not meet its statutory requirements to publish specific information on its website about the curriculum, governance and its accessibility plan.
• The school does not comply with Department for Education guidance on what academies should publish about governance, its annual report and accounts and its equality objectives.

Information about this inspection

• Inspectors observed 17 lessons or parts of lessons, of which six were jointly observed with either the executive headteacher or associate headteacher.
• In addition, inspectors made a number of other short visits to lessons and other activities, for example to look at pupils’ books, talk to pupils, and observe an assembly.
• Inspectors heard pupils read during lessons.
• Inspectors held meetings with the executive and associate headteacher, other leaders, other members of staff and a group of pupils.
• Inspectors met the chief executive officer of the trust.
• The lead inspector met two members of the cluster governing body, one of whom is a director of the trust. The chair of the cluster governing body was unavailable during the inspection.
• Inspectors took account of 33 responses to the online questionnaire, Parent View, as well as 25 responses to Parent View free text. They also spoke to 14 parents at the school gate.
• Inspectors observed the school’s work and scrutinised a number of documents, including reports and minutes of the cluster governing body, the school’s self-evaluation, improvement plans and school information on pupils’ recent attainment and progress.
• Inspectors also considered behaviour and attendance information, policies and procedures including special educational needs, pupil premium, PE and sport premium, safeguarding, child protection and behaviour.

Inspection team

Mark Sims, lead inspector Her Majesty's Inspector Mark Hinton Ofsted Inspector Mary Maybank Ofsted Inspector